Download (already public DR3/4) = hours/days for ~TB of already processed data — not raw!

Processing = years: cleaning 1B+ stars, μas precision, modeling orbits, removing noise. Supercomputers needed.
Full archive >1 PB (ESA).

Day 114 of comety things: still no cloaking device malfunction, no alien Yelp review, no "Take us to your leader" in Morse code via gas jets.
At this point, the satire is writing itself — and 3I/ATLAS is still failing its audition for Loeb’s spaceship fleet. 😄

Spot on—and that's the mind-bender! That Cornish tin traveled over 1,000 km to become part of our oldest sky map. Early Bronze Age trade routes were wild. Thanks for the reminder; it makes the disk feel even more connected to us all.

Absolutely possible!
The Nebra disk might well have been born from pure wonder—someone looking up at the Pleiades, the Moon, the golden Sun, and thinking, “I have to capture this.”

Image Credit: Dbachmann, Wikipedia

The disk is valued at approximately $11 million.

Some researchers suggest a second, matching disk may still lie undiscovered.

In short, the Nebra sky disk is a captivating Bronze Age artifact—perhaps the earliest “portrait” of the heavens—yet its full story continues to elude us.

4/4

In essence, it functions as a map of the night sky, highlighting specific celestial bodies.

Its original purpose remains uncertain.

Proposed explanations include an astronomical clock for tracking time or events, a work of art, or a religious symbol.

3/4

around 1600 BC.

The disk is crafted from bronze and measures about 30 cm in diameter. Once reconstructed, the golden dots are interpreted as stars.

A distinct cluster represents the Pleiades, the star group easily visible to the naked eye.

2/4

Definitely!

Image: NGC 2170, Stellar Nursery in Monoceros ESO

Credit: Robert Gendler

Source: www.treasuresofthesouthernsky.org?view=gallery01

Via Wikimedia Commons

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

🔭 🧪 ⚛️ #ScienceDay #WorldScienceDay #Science

2/2

You’re right about the sexism — Franklin was sidelined, and Watson’s “Rosie” was dismissive.
Cobb & Comfort don’t excuse that.
But name-calling doesn’t help us understand the science or the history.
Let’s keep the focus on facts and contributions.
Thanks for the passion!

Appreciate the thought, but that’s a different (and fascinating) debate!

2/2

The article by Cobb & Comfort focuses on who contributed what to the 1953 DNA structure discovery and how the story was told — not on the origins of life or evolution.

Crick, in fact, strongly supported natural selection and random mutation as the basis of biology.
...
1/2

Absolutely agree.
If that draft had been published, it could have established a fairer memory of Franklin as early as 1953.
Instead, the silence left the field open to Watson’s narrative.
Cobb and Comfort are now giving us back what we missed back then.
Thanks for the comment.

Probably because Franklin pointed out scientific errors that required substantial corrections (Bruce had directly consulted the protagonists, including Rosalind Franklin, to describe the discovery).

Read the illuminating article by Cobb & Confort in Nature.

4/4